Don’t think for a moment that the Democrats are giving up on defeat. They are only laying low. They are convinced that defeat is just around the corner. Their thesis?
The United States has acquired a ramshackle, ungovernable and unresponsive dependency that is incapable of securing its own borders or managing its own affairs. More than three years after then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice handed President Bush a note announcing that “Iraq is sovereign,” that sovereignty remains a fiction.
They will not accept a sovereign Iraq because that would vindicate the Bush foreign policy. The goalposts will be moved until they can declare defeat and go home.
Even a prescient warning by a grand old man of liberal politics may not be enough to keep them from the third rail of security policy. Democrats cannot be trusted with national security. Every once in a while, they feel the need to remind us.
“Democrats cannot be trusted with national security.”
Considering there is still no fence at our southern border and the flow northward still continues, I think Republicans are in the same boat. This administration has lacked the steel reserve to do what is absolutely necessary to keep our security a priority.
Fair point although I doubt the Democrats will do a better job.
[…] Michael Kennedy created an interesting post today on The Democrats and the surgeHere’s a short outline […]
In some ways, this reminds me of the conundrum of “which would you rather eat: cat feces or horse feces?” Both are awful, but I imagine that one is preferable to the other.
It would be nice if there was another choice.
For all the genuine concern about the border, I am MUCH more concerned over the foreign policy nonsense coming from the Left—pulling troops out in 30 days, misunderestimating Pakistan’s elections, threatening to invade Pakistan, and so forth. That isn’t saying the border isn’t important; it is.
I suspect the Right likes the Border issue so that it can attack candidates it doesn’t like on the Right. Fact is, there is no perfect candidate. To misquote Rummie, we go to elections with the candidates we can get.
“Fair point although I doubt the Democrats will do a better job.”
Perhaps, but unlike the Repubs the Dems have not used the closed borders, no amnesty as their war cry (and failed). Therefore there are no expectations if the Dems get into office… it will always look worse and be worse for the Repubs because the party failed in this.
Still, “sitting out” the next election in protest is counterproductive. What kinds of lifetime appointed Supreme Court justices will President Clinton II or President Obama appoint?
Letting the whole system collapse so that “good Republicans” can rebuild will have a very heavy cost indeed.
And keep in mind that I am guessing that we will have a brokered Republican convention. Anything can happen. So conservative involvement and hard work is vital; giving up simply cedes the nation to our current crop of so-called progressives.
I keep thinking about 1992. My parents voted for Ross Perot. That attitude made Bill Clinton president. My parents have always detested Clinton, and they blame themselves daily for their attitude in 1992—voting for someone out of protest (heck, they knew that Perot could never have been president). They wanted to send a “message” to the Republican party.
But it wasn’t the message they thought it was….
Just my opinion.
And Dana—I was deeply moved by the comment on “Amazing Grace” you made on the Swamp website.
If you haven’t read Dinesh D’Souza’s new book about Christianity, “What’s So Great About Christianity,” you might consider it. Sometimes, he goes over the top, but so do his opponents. And he is MORE than the equal of his detractors, as any debate (youtube has them) shows. Grist for the mill, I think, even when I don’t see eye to eye with him.
As for me, I need to order “Amazing Grace” from Amazon. Thanks for the description.
I was also touched by C.S. Lewis’ famous book “A Grief Observed.” Atheists think that faith is mindless and easy. It is neither. I’m glad I am not posting in that other place, because some people would say horrible things about Lewis, and his books have been very important to me over the years. Lewis is worth a dozen of his detractors, most of whom have never read his books.
Anyway….
Dana, remember that the perfect is often the enemy of the good. Open borders are a policy decision by Democrats because they assume, and rightly so in my opinion, that Hispanic voters who were legalized by amnesty will support Democrats. Republicans who believe that these people will support them in gratitude for amnesty are deluding themselves. The legalized voter will be poor for at least two generations, given the history of the second generation Hispanics in US schools.
A good insightful point, Mike K. I think it is correct.
There is some distasteful usery by the Dem in this assumption but seems to profit them nicely.
The problem also speaks to the compromises involved in courting Hispanic voters. (There are huge numbers of legal Hispanics that do support closed borders and no amnesty yet rarely do we hear from them).
p.s. thanks Eric Blair.
When I taught college in Southern California, I had many students whose parents were legal immigrants. None were rich. All were scrabbling to put their children through school.
All of them insisted that their children speak English AND Spanish, and all of them had contempt for illegal immigrants.
Who can blame them? They followed the rules.
We had one student whose parents were illegal, and the college went through incredible hoops to get that student financial aid. The funny part is that the student was in fact truly a great and deserving student…but his parents wouldn’t go through the hoops (they had been in this country for fifteen years illegally) and in my opinion put their child in that situation.
Of course, Mexico would never act in a reciprocal fashion….
“What kinds of lifetime appointed Supreme Court justices will President Clinton II or President Obama appoint?”
I’ve been reading Prince of Darkness and Novak claims the choice of notoriously (in AZ) pro-abort Sandra Day O’Connor was almost solely for affirmative action cred. Souter was a disaster for Poppy Bush, and Harriet Myers was a near-miss. Still, Roberts and Alito were great appointments.
So it’s as if we have a zero chance with a Dem president and only a 50/50 chance with a Repub.
Great book, by the way, for recent history detail from a pretty hardcore conservative of the old school.
Tru dat, Cassandra. I’m disappointed in Fred Thompson, too, but he has always been not-running-very-hard for that job. He was my guy.
But given the roots of your name, I’ll take the 50% chance of a strict constructionist under a Republican President over the 100% chance of a judicial relativist under President Clinton II or President Obama.
Probably three of them, in fact.
By all means. Ask the candidates. Even to get votes, I don’t think either Hillary or Barack will lie.
That’s the thing that gets me about the “let’s sit this one out” conservatives. They know, 100%, that we will be a lot of trouble if the Democrats win the White House (with these Democrats, anyway). But they are so upset with McCain or Romney that they will give us all decades of nutty Supreme Court rulings? Run the risk of having the Middle East explode, almost literally (based on the “let’s boogie in one year” strategy of Hillary, Barack, and John)?
That’ll fix us! We’ll sure appreciate them after that! Or so it sounds to me.
I don’t mean any disrespect when I write that. The “sit-outers” seem to know that there will be Hades to pay, and they seem pleased that it will somehow prove them right. The stakes are too high for that ideological purity, I think.
Bainbridge says “we will survive” a Clinton II or Obama Presidency. Was he happy with 8 years of Clinton? That lead to Clinton II?
Like I said, I don’t understand the sentiment. But people get to vote how they wish. Not voting *is* the same as voting for the winner. All I know is that the people who voted for Perot in ’92 to send a message received quite a different answer. One we are dealing with now, many years later.
Your mileage may vary, of course.
VERY true about the Novak book. Fascinating read.